Starting Sept. 5, 2014, Genealogy.com will be making a big change. GenForum message boards, Family Tree Maker homepages, and the most popular articles will be preserved in a read-only format, while several other features will no longer be available, including member subscriptions and the Shop.
 
Learn more


Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: VanSickle Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: Ed Gusman (ID *****7908) Date: December 04, 2002 at 17:23:29
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Richard Alan McCool of 1583

My upcoming response will be very long - and by your standards probably meandering. By my standards long but very detailed and to the point. It is all relative in the eye of the beholder.

There is content that you are not going to rejoice about while reading. I suspect that most people when they open it will not bother reading it after a paragraph or two. However they should read it all, they might learn something about what is revealed when read "between the line". I am quite forthright.

No the deponents were not infallible but they certainly could remember the names of their grandparents and who was a first wife.Fanny had no reason not to remember where her grandfather died, and no reaon to lie about where he died - Fanny was born in Oxford County, Ontario Canada went to school there probably not much but enough to have learned that there was a Quebec Province and would have known from her mother where he grandfather had died. Ferdinand would certainly have remembered that he walked and talked with his grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen and had no reason to lie about that or the Revolutionary service of his grandfather,which both deponents and their siblings and descendents would have remembered. That is the extent of what their affidavits deal with. The Bible entries include a bit more. Not a great deal to remember by the deponents is it? But I will never, until presented with conclusive evidence, back away from my belief that the deponsnts knew exactly what the testified about amd they made no errors.

I have three daughters - none are interested in the DAR. I suspect the DAR would accept the deponents affidavits but between 1907 and now would be a genuine problem.

I had an e-mail from a lady who said obtaining membership was very difficult - she had assisted a sister but does not care for membership herself.

I regret that I will not send you the names or e-mail address of the two foreign researchers. I respect them above most people that I have encountered. My reason for not telling you their names and e-mail address is that I no longer trust your integrity. I have been subjected to your and Doug's ridicule and sarcasm for so long that I will not take a chance that you will not subject those bearing the names I could provide to the same treatment. I freely admit that I too have been equally sarcastic and used ridicule abundently, and at various times extremely nasty, but never until I was first subjected to such treatment. As I said, I respond in kind. Assume the researchers are fictional if you choose - it is of no consequence to myself.

I am uncertain as to what you mean by properly documented corrections. I assume you to mean that if there are conflicts with interpretation of data (a natural and expected event)if the changes are documented as to source and purpose there is no problem. That is my belief also.

I have said repeatedly that I have uncovered nothing but the affidavits and the DAR application and even those were given to me by another researcher.There is nothing I can provide about Van Siclen's because I have found nothing. Sure I have viewed the LDS and other genealogy sites on line, including some in Canada and other states. At one point I posted requests on various sites for the Eastling Bible offering as I called it an unspecified remuneration or offer to purchase. I have sent for and viewed micro film in the Madison LDS center.I admit that while I know what to do and where to get information, I am rather lazy and consequently not a dedicated researcher to the extent that you and Doug may be. I am not a cherry picker researcher - that is one who collects names and documents but doesn't know what to look for when reviewing documents. I started off being a cherry picker but relatively early on developed an abiding interest in the contents of the documents I find or receive.

I agree that I can be extremely difficult to deal with. I dispise people who alter spelling of names without first discovering a paper trail which substantiates the alteration.I have no problem at all with variations in name spelling providing there is a paper trail whereby a blood line can be followed with a reasonable degree of accuracy.Without a paper trail I rarely will accept a variant spelling for a name. I also speculate when there is sufficient coroborating evendence to provide at least a modicum of accuracy for speculation. Unlike Van I never tamper with historical records be they in the form of documented dates events,records and stories. I have encounteres both records and family tradition which I know is wrong from reliable sources. I change such records when I have the evidence to prove the error but I never destroy the original record, family tradition or whatever. I always note the alterations and keep both before and after records of the change.


Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
No followups yet

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/974.html
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network